Trump is slated to elect Myron Ebell, an outspoken climate change denier, as the head of his EPA transition team. This would undermine all climate change initiatives that have been taken under Obama's initiative.
Sarah Green commented
NO, this is 100% wrong: "Much of the claims of anthropogenic climate change are based on computational models." Climate science is based on physics, chemistry, and measurements of the Earth system. People who deny that the climate is changing because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have no alternate theory to describe the Earth system, including both recent and ancient changes in the climate.
NO, also wrong: "In the 1970s it was an ice age we faced." Some popular media promoted this idea; the majority of scientists studying the issue projected global warming (Peterson 2008).
Sorry folks. I must politely disagree. Much of the claims of anthropogenic climate change are based on computational models. Such models are theories instantiated in computer code and are, thus, imperfect. In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. If there are no conditions the community can name under which they would say their theory (of anthropogenic climate change in this case) is wrong, then, by definition, it is not science.
The ability to verify the code is doing what you think It is, and the ability to validate predictions made by that model against independently-gathered data from the system one is trying to model are critical steps. If all of these steps check out, and your model cannot predict observed data, then the model, not the data from the real system, needs to be adjusted.....
And this is the (pseudoscientific) state of "climate science" as nearly as I can tell. In the 1970s it was an ice age we faced. Then massive warming. Now some poorly defined "change." and what is really fun about all of this is that these about-faces are occurring in timeframes that aren't even blips from the perspective of the actual climatological timescales we are talking about. Three qualitatively different sets of predictions in 40 years?? All of which demand *immediate* action or we face clear catastrophe within 10-50 years?? A 40-year "trend" would probably not even impact the size of the error bars around averages of observed temperature data (manipulated or otherwise)......
When one considers the number of automobiles on the roads of the world 100 years ago and compare that to the staggering number today (even using gross estimates) the monumental increase in CO2 cannot be denied. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is not up for debate. How one can take this simple amount of information and not conclude that humans are contributing to global warming signifies a prevaricator who is operating solely in short term self-interest and without regard to the well being of others.
As most of us know, global warming is a "fact Jack". Any modestly educated person who does does not recognize this is willfully ignorant. The easiest evidence to understand is that the cryosphere is melting from pole to pole. This is also the easiest to varify on line. The resulting sea level rise is the most obvious existential threat to the US as well as other countries. The only thing in our power is to reduce greenhouse gasses. To do otherwise is a kind of treason.
J. Solons commented
No matter the cause or causes it's time to address the changes underway and prepare for more to come.
J. Solons commented
Change is taking place, no matter the cause or causes. Trump needs to be clued in on how best to address climate change and urged to follow through. Sound the alarm. Water may soon be lapping at Trump Tower.
Leslie Dow commented
Honestly, I get that other issues are important, but this dwarfs anything else. With the CO2 level crossing the 440PPM level and the dramatic increase in China's dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, this should be the #1 top concern of the new administration. We, as scientists, need to push this. HARD. We cannot let the deniers deny humanity of a future that remotely resembles our current life.